-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 41
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Update to bitcoin:0.32
#234
Conversation
|
42f951f
to
f950b84
Compare
That's nice thanks! I couldn't see right away what could be the issue with the unit test that is failing, but it might be good to try to get the integration tests running to see if it's really just that unit test or if there is an actual issue (not sure what is the issue with them, seems something to do with coin selection). |
simple-wallet/src/lib.rs
Outdated
keychain: KeychainKind::External, | ||
is_spent: false, | ||
// @Tibo how do we want to handle this? Store the localoutput in storage? | ||
confirmation_time: ConfirmationTime::unconfirmed(1), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@Tibo-lg coin selection seems to be the issue for integration tests. Doesn't seem to lead to the unit test though.
Integration tests are very flakey so haven't gotten them to fully pass.
How should we handle the derivation index and conf time? Not sure if it should be included with the Utxo
type.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't think it matters because these fields are probably used by BDK but not in these tests. I tried running the integration tests by replacing BnB
with OlderFirst
, but it then runs into a signature verification error which might be the same issue highlighted by the failing unit test. I'll try to look a bit more what could be the issue but it's not obvious for now.
I think I've fixed all issues. I wanted to push to your branch but was somehow not able not sure why. Can you cherry pick this commit? be327ce |
f950b84
to
5d24fb3
Compare
tACK rebased and pushed with the changes. Looks like the issue was the hash type macro? |
5d24fb3
to
b0a9856
Compare
Is this good to merge and release? |
No CI is not passing, it seems there is some PSBT issue. I don't have time to look at it right now, I'll try to next week, but if you solve it before I'm happy to make a release |
dlc-manager/src/contract_updater.rs
Outdated
let transaction = fund_psbt.extract_tx().map_err(|e| { | ||
Error::InvalidState(format!( | ||
"Could not extract transaction from funding psbt. {}", | ||
e | ||
)) | ||
})?; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This should fix the error.
let transaction = fund_psbt.extract_tx().map_err(|e| { | |
Error::InvalidState(format!( | |
"Could not extract transaction from funding psbt. {}", | |
e | |
)) | |
})?; | |
let transaction = fund_psbt.extract_tx_unchecked_fee_rate(); |
Thank you. Pushed the change and all pass. |
All peer dependencies are now able to update to
bitcoin
32.Most changes are renaming of methods and different export paths.
Notable changes:
lightning
no longer exportsstd::io::Cursor
and uses an emulation throughlightning::io::Cursor
. PRlightning/src/io/mod.rs
peer_connected
andpeer_disconnected
. I believe they don't do anything since there is no specific node feature flagging for DLC's. Which could be an interesting feature to add to assert peers are able to parse DLC mesages.bitcoin
32 introduces usingAmount
overu64
in all transaction related structs. I opted to keep this crate asu64
but I think should introduce usingAmount
overu64
in a future PR.